Inventory and Monitoring Issue Team Action Plan
September 5, 2001 Status Report
The Inventory and Monitoring Issue Team (IMIT) is an interagency team chartered by the
Ecosystem Sustainability Corporate Team (ESCT) to carry out actions necessary to implement
the Forest Service Framework for Inventory and Monitoring (Framework). The Framework
describes agency goals and principles for inventory and monitoring programs. The IMIT has
worked to develop this Action Plan in close collaboration with key external partners. For
brevity, the goal and principles are not repeated here. Readers are encouraged to review the
supporting information is available via the IMIT web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/iim..
The Issue Team developed this plan by focusing on actions that would result in sustainable
processes and organizational changes within the Agency. Concerns expressed by Regional
participants highlighted the need for the agency to set aside a legacy of fragmented inventory and
monitoring activities in favor of establishing strong linkages between what the agency must do
(our business) and what inventory and monitoring programs and tools are needed to fulfill
agency commitments. Because so much energy is expended in disparate surveys and monitoring
activities, day-to-day demands have diffused our efforts and consumed our financial and people
resources. This plan includes strategic actions such as analyzing business requirements,
identifying unifying and organizing systems as foundations to design of inventory and
monitoring programs, and bolstering effectiveness of collaboration to obtain and use data and
information to change our organizational culture. The plan also sets out to improve vexing
operational problems rooted in shortcomings of our accountability systems, communications
approaches, organizational structure, and evolution of protocols for inventory and monitoring.
The charter for the IMIT and Framework adopted by the ESCT identified six “focal areas”
included in this Action Plan:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Business Requirements
Ecological, Social and Economic Systems
Collaboration
Accountability and Communication
Organizational Structure and Roles
Protocols
The ESCT has also directed that actions described in this Action Plan (a) build on past
information management strategies; (b) build on established core variable concepts; (c) utilize an
integrated systems approach; and (d) establish clear leadership and organizational roles. In
addition, the efforts of the IMIT should focus upon improving linkages and to the Forest
Service’s GPRA Strategic Plan and measures of sustainability associated with the Montreal
Process (Criteria and Indicators).
This Action Plan includes major activities and initial assignments. A phased approach for
addressing each focal area is envisioned within the Framework, therefore, this is a working
document and will be updated as progress is made and new opportunities are identified. An
initial timeline of actions is included in Appendix B. Within each focal area TASKS are
described. Each TASK description includes: implementation activities or "steps" (What), the
accountable person(s) within the FS who will convene and facilitate the activity (Who), and the
1
D:\282232017.doc
expected completion date (When). Complex tasks will be undertaken by Working Groups
chartered as the plan is implemented. Working Groups will manage efforts through more detailed
project planning than is provided in this document.
The IMIT will provide the ESCT periodic updates on progress as described in the Charter. An
ongoing dialogue with other ESCT Issue Teams is expected to ensure the efforts of this Issue
Team are fully coordinated with the efforts of other teams. Activities will be coordinated and
linked to on-going efforts such as the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) development
of the Forest Service’s Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), and other corporate
databases.
Interested parties are encouraged to contact IMIT members for additional information or
clarification of proposed activities, or to offer comments or suggestions. A list of IMIT contacts
is available on the IMIT web site.
2
IMIT Members (4/1/00)
Key Partners
Core Team Members
The Nature Conservancy
Bureau of Land Management
Natural Resource and Conservation Service
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy
National Park Service
Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
Denny Grossman
Jim Stone
Jeff Goebel
Extended Team Members
Robert Willis
Paul Geissler
Tom Muir
Gary Williams
Mike McDonald
Tony Olsen, Roger Blair
Craig Johnson
Forest Service
National Forest System
Western Regions
Eastern Regions
Ecosystem Management Coordination
Engineering
Forest Management
Range Management
Watershed and Air Management
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Rare Plants
Minerals and Geology
Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness
Lands
Research and Development
Forest Inventory and Analysis
Research Stations
State and Private Forestry
Forest Health Monitoring
Forest Health Protection
Aviation and Fire Management
Western S&PF programs
Eastern S&PF programs
Chief Information Officer
Information Management
Chief Financial Officer
Strategic Planning and Assessment
Inventory and Monitoring Institute
Sustainability Issue Team
Kerry McMenus
David Meriwether
Steve Solem
Christina Hargis
Jerry Stokes
Doug Powell, Peg Watry, Jim
Keys, Ron Brohman
Mark Flood
Doug MacCleery
Larry Bryant
Keith McLaughlin
Eric Johnston
Dallas Emch
Steve Boutcher, Mike Kazor,
Peter Landres
Greg Asher
Andy Gillespie
Ray Czaplewski
John Kelly
Ken Stolte
Borys Tkacz
Chuck Liff
Kerry McMenus
David Meriwether
John King
Larry Mastic
Patrice Janiga
Not defined since Albee
moved
Dallas Emch
Sheila Andrus
Ecosystem Restoration Issue Team
Invasive Species Issue Team
3
I. Business Requirements
A variety of inventory and monitoring efforts exist within the Forest Service, at the national,
regional, and local scales. Different approaches at the local scale make it difficult or sometimes
impossible to use these data to address broader needs. Likewise, inventory and monitoring at the
national scale is sometimes not suited to interpretation at local scales. The need for inventory and
monitoring data to be linked across spatial and temporal scales has become more obvious as we
face increasing demands to share and exchange data between administrative units, land
management organizations, and the public. We a lack a uniform, collective understanding of the
purpose and objectives for inventory and monitoring programs clearly linked to the business
requirements of the agency. More explicitly identifying the links between business needs of the
agency and inventory and monitoring activities will help the agency reduce unnecessary efforts,
identify priorities for needed work, direct resources to fulfilling those priorities, foster program
efficiencies, provide for greater accountability, and improve our ability to share data and
information.
1. TASK: Ensure inventory and monitoring activities meet Forest Service business
requirements and the needs of our varied customers.
A. What: Establish overall agreement on an overarching national statement of purpose and
objectives for inventory and monitoring to serve as a starting point for managing inventory
and monitoring programs.
Who:
When:
Status:
members.
ESCT
(Powell)
FY 2000
Powell drafted purpose and objective statements under review by IMIT
B. What: Design an approach to analyzing business requirements analyses that provides
management and subject-matter-expert participation from throughout the agency and
exploits prior work done by FIA, FHM, and NRIS. Develop an approach for
communicating, educating, and training agency personnel on the methods to be used.
Who:
ESCT and IREMCG (Janiga, Brohman)
When:
FY 2000 –FY2001
Status:
Completed. Initial process revised to use Budget Formulation and
Execution System (BFES) activities for overarching model, concurrence by team leader
completed.
C. What: Conduct a multi-level business requirements analysis to serve as the basis for
designing efficient and credible inventory and monitoring programs. Ensure business
requirements include legal requirements, management needs, and customer expectations.
Analyses of regional business needs will serve as the basis for designing efficient and
credible inventory and monitoring programs that (1) provide data that can be “rolled up” or
aggregated and reported at appropriate scales and, (2) provide foundation of local surveys
and monitoring at local scales.
4
Who:
ESCT and IREMCG (Brohman)
When:
FY 2001 - FY 2003
Status:
Initial model drafted based on BFES activities in August 2001. Initial draft
for National Forest Systems activities associated with Conducting Above-Project
Inventories; Monitoring; and Conducting Assessments completed September 2001.
Models under review during October 2001. Additional modeling for resource specific
activities scheduled for FY 2002.
II. Ecological, Social, and Economic Systems
Different Forest Service units are in various stages of implementing inventory and monitoring
programs that integrate data through the use of common database structures and integrated
analyses to foster efficient field operations. These 'integrated' inventories attempt to combine
parts of traditional inventories, however, the patterns and processes inherent in ecological, social,
and economic systems (including biological, physical, and cultural aspects) are not reflected in
the design. Therefore the flexibility of inventory and monitoring efforts to respond to changing
issues and questions is limited. The agency needs to apply approaches that recognize the
complexity of interactions and account for the dynamic nature, potential capabilities, and finite
capacities of ecological, social, and economic systems at multiple scales to provide goods and
services.
2. TASK: Use a systems approach as the basis for design of inventory and monitoring
activities.
A. What: Review existing articles and publications describing a “systems approach” for
inventory and monitoring programs and compile a peer/science reviewed paper which
defines ecological, social, and economic systems the Forest Service needs information
about.
Who:
IMI
(Hoekstra)
When:
FY 2000
Status:
IMIT concurred that preliminary draft paper will be needed prior to
business requirements analysis is initiated. The final product will not be due for
completion until late in 2001 (after processing through a science review forum). The first
internal draft paper is in progress.
B. What: Publish descriptions of classification schemes for ecological, social, and economic
systems relying on existing peer reviewed works to the extent feasible. Where existing
classification schemes have been described (e.g. National Hierarchy of Terrestrial
Ecological Units), review these for consistency with a “systems approach” and describe
their potential utility and relevance to ecological, social, and economic systems. Ensure
review by managers and scientists or science advisory panel(s).
Who:
EMC
(Keys, Hoekstra, resource specialists)
5
When:
FY2000 – FY 2001
Status: This action meshes well with ongoing efforts in ECOMAP which is a Chief’s
National Commitment in the FY2000/2001 budget and operates under an interagency
agreement, products will be included in the National Atlas.
C. What: Compile descriptions of existing inventory and monitoring programs and evaluate
these programs against the principles within the Framework; Forest Service business
requirements; an ecological, social, and economic systems approach; and associated
classification schemes. Evaluate the capacity of NRIS to support ecological, social, and
economic analyses relevant to a systems approach to inventory and monitoring.
Who:
IMIT
(Janiga)
When:
FY2001 - FY 2002
Status:
IMIT agreed that this needs to be done as 2 phases; (1) listing of
programs, and (2) evaluation of programs. A subteam charged with undetaking phase 1
is drafting the project plan. Target due date for compilation of programs is November
2001.
D. What: Use interagency committees and initiatives, such as the Federal Geographic Data
Committee and National Biological Information Infrastructure, to gain agreement for data
standards and commitment to common base map themes (including data, attributes, and
metadata) that provide consistent characterization of lands across federal ownerships.
Who:
R&D
(NBII, USGS, Brohman)
When:
FY2000 – FY 2001
Status: FGDC subcommittee meetings are continuing to result in the establishment of
data standards. NBII meetings are leading to the establishment of standards for
biological data elements. The Forest Service has presented white paper expressing
concerns with current FGDC vegetation classification standards. Discussion of resolution
is ongoing.
E. What: Evaluate existing inventory and monitoring data standards against National
standards to determine changes needed for compliance with these standards.
Who:
When:
Status:
EMC, FIA, CIO
(Solem, King)
III. Collaboration
Numerous partnerships related to inventory and monitoring work of the agency have been
initiated in the past. In the absence of national leadership and oversight, field units have often
independently developed and administered inventory and monitoring partnerships at the regional
and local levels. From the perspective of partners, the diversity of agreements and contact
persons is a disincentive to cooperation. National partnership agreements are needed to simplify
regional or local agreements, clearly describe roles and responsibilities, and enable local units to
6
benefit from national level commitments. Partnerships need to be forged with regulatory
agencies (eg. EPA, FWS, NMFS) to foster consistency of interpretation of laws and regulations
that drive many inventory and monitoring efforts within the Forest Service.
3. TASK: Improve ability to collaborate between administrative units, with partners, and
customers of inventory and monitoring programs.
A. What: Develop a set of collaboration goals for inventory and monitoring activities that
addresses issues such as data stewardship, cost-sharing, quality control and assurance,
science reviews, and use of standard protocols.
Who:
When:
Status:
ESCT
FY2002
(IMIT Core Team)
B. What: Establish a process for periodically reviewing national and regional inventory and
monitoring agreements against an “inventory and monitoring checklist” of collaboration
goals. Maintain the “list” as a tool to evaluate progress towards established collaboration
goals during activity and program reviews.
Who:
When:
Status:
ESCT
(IMIT Core Team)
FY2002 – FY 2003
C. What: Identify barriers to the exchange of data and information between Forest Service
units and between the Forest Service and principle partners that are a function of our
information management systems (e.g., firewalls, operating systems and software).
Identify opportunities to resolve differences and develop agreements that will eliminate
barriers through the actions of respective Chief Information Officers.
Who:
When:
Status:
CIO
(Solem, King)
FY2001-2002
D. What: Identify methods for negotiating and funding data stewardship for data to be
shared across federal agencies such as has been done for ECOMAP and NRCS soil
inventories.
Who:
When:
Status:
EMC
(Bradford)
not scheduled
IV. Communication and Accountability
7
Three major areas of concern are (1) our ability to communicate the purpose of and findings
from inventory and monitoring activities in ways that demonstrate relevance to public interests
and concerns, (2) the access and use of data gathered through inventories, and (3) the scientific
credibility, management, and accountability for inventory and monitoring programs, including
quality assurance and quality control. The Forest Service needs to improve the communication
and accountability throughout all inventory and monitoring programs.
4. TASK: Clearly articulate the purpose, scope, operations, uses, and findings of inventory
and monitoring programs.
A. What: Formulate a communications strategy for all Forest Service inventory and
monitoring programs. Create a one-stop place for anyone to find out how inventory and
monitoring efforts are organized and managed with effective links to data, protocols, and
reports.
Who:
ESCT
(Solem, OC, IMIT Core Team, IMI)
When:
FY2001 – FY 2002
Status:
Communication plan drafted in FY 2001. Focus for FY 2002 will be to
promote awareness of the Action Plan and Framework with field office personnel in
order to prepare them to review protocols under development and to provide feedback to
help priortize IMIT actions in FY 2002 and FY 2003.
B. What: Develop a training program to increase understanding and core competencies
related to inventory and monitoring design, quality management, data analysis, reporting,
and information sharing. The program should address both managerial and technical
skills.
Who:
IMIT with HRM Corporate Training Office
When:
not scheduled
Status: Some training has already been developed and implemented (e.g., courses at the
National Aquatic Ecosystem Monitoring Center in Logan, UT). Other training is under
development (e.g., monitoring for the new planning rule and RSAC courses for FIA in
digital image processing/change detection and GPS/Aerial Photo Short Course).
C. What: To improve knowledge of sound practices prepare a series of technical papers
addressing important topics such as existing statistical design and sampling methods,
protocol selection, quality assurance practices, certification, technology applications, and
analysis methods successfully being used in the agency. Ensure interagency collaboration
to foster understanding of methods employed by different agencies. Synthesize findings
and ensure access to papers through the Internet and other media.
Who:
When:
Status:
R&D
(Czaplewski)
FY2001 – FY 2002
5. TASK: Improve information and the ease of access to inventory and monitoring data and
8
information about our programs.
A. What: Evaluate ongoing pilot and test projects related to information delivery from
inventory, monitoring, planning, and assessment activities using the world-wide web.
Formulate a strategy for agency and public access to data, protocols, and reports that
provides a one-stop clearinghouse or portal to access inventory and monitoring
information (data, protocols, analyses, findings, etc.)
Who:
EMC, ENG, IRM, FIA, FHM
(Hodge, Carroll, King, Kelly, Liff )
When:
FY2000 – FY 2002
Status: GSTC is conducting several tests in close collaboration with IRM to evaluate
clearinghouse capabilities for exchange of spatial data. EMC is conducting pilot test with
the Chugach NF to evaluate the exchange of data and public participation opportunities in
Forest Planning using web-based tools with ESRI Corporation/IBM. FIA is building a
National Presentation Data Base that will be accessible to the public via the internet.
Region 6 has embarked on a project funded by the National Science Foundation for
designing web-based approaches to enabling public participation and access to data and
information for adaptive management.
B. What: Establish and maintain an information delivery methodology based upon the
review of pilot and test projects.
Who:
EMC, ENG, IRM
(Hodge, Carroll, King, Kelly, Bradford)
When:
FY2000 – FY 2002
Status:
GSTC and RSAC have presented proposed approach to GAC and have
scheduled presentations to Chief in order to communicate resources needed to support
delivery of geospatial data in cohesive and consistent manner to the public and partners.
6. TASK: Strengthen scientific credibility, management, and accountability of inventory and
monitoring programs.
A. What: Compare Forest Service management and accountability of inventory and
monitoring programs with other organizations and identify opportunities for
improvement.
Who:
When:
Status:
ESCT
not scheduled
(IMIT)
B. What: Continue activity reviews using more integrated approaches across resource
programs and administrative levels as ongoing processes for continuous improvement.
At national and regional levels use cross-deputy teams to assess: (a) adherence to
management policies and direction; (b) effectiveness of training, communications efforts,
and agreements; (c) adherence to data and protocol standards; (d) application of best
available science, (e) consistency with program direction and fiscal integrity, (f) quality
management practices; (g) reporting accuracy; and (h) customer satisfaction.
9
Who:
FHP, SPPII, EMC
(Mangold, Gillespie, Solem)
When:
FY2000 – FY 2003
Status: Activity reviews completed for Regions 2 and 6 relative to NFS inventory and
monitoring activities. Other NFS reviews (e.g., Integrated Watershed Condition
Reviews) will include some aspects of this action. Review of IMI completed.. MOU
between NFS and FIA includes biennial administrative and technical reviews to be
conducted jointly by principle contacts listed in the MOU.
C. What: Require managers to formally assess proposed and existing inventory and
monitoring activities to justify departures from standard agency protocols before
activities are funded (i.e., a technical approval process).
Who:
ESCT
(IMIT, EMC, IRM)
When:
FY2001
Status:
Assessment of integrated inventories incorporated into the process for
Regions to use when developing Regional Strategic Inventory Plans. Monitoring not yet
addressed.
D. What: Continue to refine annual performance measures to reinforce a systematic, multiscale framework for inventory and monitoring; reflect agency priorities for inventory and
monitoring; and increase accountability for inventory and monitoring expenditures.
Who:
SPRA, CFO, ESCT (Mastic)
When:
FY2000 – FY 2001
Status: Establishment of FY2000 baselines for GPRA performance measures is currently
being conducted by the SPRA staff. Similar linkages are being developed by the CFO
and program staffs for annual budget performance measures. Regions developing
Regional Strategic Inventory Plans will align those plans with performance measures.
E. What: Streamline reporting requirements and align reports with business requirements
represented by the GPRA Strategic Plan. Ensure reporting requirements are adapted to
support new information needs such as monitoring of effects on underserved public
(GPRA Objective 2.d) and monitoring required by planning regulations.
Who:
SPRA, CFO, ESCT
When:
FY2000 – FY 2002
Status: CFO and SPRA currently working to coordinate performance measures and
reporting requirements and their identify linkages to GPRA Strategic Plan and Program
Budget Direction. M&E report content workshop is planned for October 2-6, 2001.
F. What: Review and revise Forest Service Manual and Handbook to consolidate and
improve the clarity of inventory and monitoring policy, direction, and procedures.
Incorporate new protocols as they are approved.
Who:
IMIT
(appropriate staff to be identified)
10
When:
FY 2001-2003
Status: Initiated revision of FSH 1909.14 in FY 2001. Redesigned manual and handbook
structure to facilitate updating technical protocols as needed. Protocols now to be
documented in Technical Guides that tier beneath the FS Handbook for Inventory and
Monitoring.
G. What: Identify critical advisory and assistance services Regions need to sustain
operations and meet regional and field challenges while strategic direction and changes
are being implemented during the action plan. Review services needed with Directors of
national and regional service and enterprise units (i.e. Stream Team, R&D, RSAC,
MDTC, FMSC, FIA, IMI, GSTC, FHTET, etc.) in order to communicate priorities,
evaluate capacity of units to provide assistance, and discuss approaches Regions can use
to obtain needed support.
Who:
When:
Status:
IREMCG
not scheduled
V. Organizational Structure and Roles
The distributed authority and responsibility for inventory programs throughout the Forest Service
provides opportunities for individual program areas and offices to devise unique organizational
structures, policies, and operations. Coordination across inventory and monitoring programs is
usually limited to collaboration required by high-profile bioregional assessments. Relatively few
positions within Regional Offices are designated to manage comprehensive (multi-resource)
inventory and monitoring programs. This impedes funding and management of cross-program
“systems-based” inventory and monitoring activities. Inventory and monitoring policy is
dispersed and promulgated by independent staffs through informal and formal channels.
7. TASK: Clearly define the organizational structure and associated responsibilities for
national and regional inventory and monitoring activities.
A. What: Define organizational roles and responsibilities for inventory and monitoring
activities and establish an organizational structure and management approach to fulfill
these roles at the national and regional level.
Who:
ESCT
(IMIT Core Team)
When:
FY2000 – FY 2001
Status:
Completed business activity model for managing inventory and
monitoring programs as the WO and RO level.
B. What: Establish a cross-deputy budget advisory team in the Washington Office
responsible for recommending coordinated budget allocation and improving efficiency
and effectiveness of inventory and monitoring programs.
11
Who:
ESCT
When:
FY2002
Status:
Established an NFS Program Advisory Group (PAG) consisting of
representatives from all resource areas to advise EMC on PD&B direction for I&M.
Established a Program Management Group consisting of the PAG and Regional
Inventory and Monitoring program managers (typically Planning Directors).
C. What: Designate a contact at the Staff Director level or higher within each Region,
Station, and Area to provide leadership for inventory and monitoring program planning,
budgeting, design, implementation, quality assurance, and coordination with partners.
This position is responsible for management of inventory and monitoring programs,
including budget allocation, and improving communication and collaboration.
Who:
When:
Status:
IREMCG
(Solem)
FY2000 – FY 2001
Regional contacts have been identified.
VI. Protocols
Sampling, data collection, and analysis methodologies or protocols used by inventory and
monitoring programs are typically not consistent within and between administrative units. Some
programs -- such as soils inventories -- are consistent because they are required to follow NRCS
standards, and memoranda of understanding are in place at the national, State, and survey level
to ensure consistency. However, even highly standardized inventory and monitoring activities
are not consistently applied, making data exchange and aggregation difficult. Scientific
credibility of data and results are being compromised when sampling, collection and analysis
protocols are interpreted and adapted without rigorous review.
8. TASK: Ensure scientifically credible sampling, data collection, and analysis protocols are
used in all inventory and monitoring activities.
A. What: Catalog existing protocols (sampling, collection techniques, quality control and
analysis methods, and tools) being used at multiple scales in a format similar to Appendix
A. Review protocols for science basis and identify opportunities to improve efficiency of
protocols in use.
Who:
IMIT
( IMI, FIA, NRIS User Boards)
When:
FY2000
Status: NRIS User Boards have established various task teams to review and develop
high priority inventory protocols (e.g., Common Stand Exam). FIA has a national field
manual, which details protocols for national core variables. IMI has been chartered to
foster consistent and efficient sampling and collection protocols across all programs.
These efforts are being coordinated and linked to the Inventory and Monitoring
Framework and the IMIT Action Plan.
12
B. What: Identify gaps in protocols that need to be filled. Establish methods to determine
priorities for national investments in protocol development and funding of specific
inventories (e.g. criteria such as TES monitoring, litigation risk).
Who:
IMIT
When:
FY 2001 – FY 2003
Status:
The Wilderness Monitoring Committee (WMC) is assessing the degree
that resource inventories and monitoring programs are/are not being implemented within
designated wilderness areas. The WMC has identified the need to develop methods to
capture and report on conditions within wilderness areas at they affect the “Character of
Wilderness” based on originating legislation. IMIT identified the Aquatic Ecologic Unit
Inventory (AEUI), Terrestrial Ecologic Unit Inventory (TEUI), Vegetation classification,
mapping, and inventory; Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants population and habitat
monitoring; and Social/economic analysis protocols as high priority protocols to
establish. WFRP team is identifying meta-protocol standard for wildlife habitat and
population monitoring, future protocols will be based on this general description of a
protocol for wildlife, fish, and rare plants. Completion of these efforts will require field
reviews and testing during FY 2002. Priorities for next round of protocols will be
identified in FY 2002 based on Regional and field information and the completion of the
agency overarching business model for inventory and monitoring.
C. What: Establish process for development, testing, evaluation, and adoption of protocols
for collection and analysis of data for inventory and monitoring programs. Ensure
standard protocols can be affordably sustained as budgets rise and fall and will pass
rigorous science reviews.
Who:
ESCT
(IMIT)
When:
FY2002
Status: The IMI and Regions 1 and 4 are currently conducting a pilot test of systems
based inventories at the sub-regional scale. FHM has a process for developing, testing,
evaluating, and adopting indicators. Established teams for development of AEUI; TEUI;
Vegetation classification, mapping, and inventory; Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants
population monitoring; and Social/economic analysis protocols. The Wilderness
Monitoring Committee is working on methods related to report on conditions within
wilderness areas at they affect the “Character of Wilderness.” Work by WMC is
coordinated with interagency wilderness coordinating groups such as the Carhart Institute
and Wilderness Monitoring Institute.
D. What: Develop, evaluate, and transfer of technologies that improve the quality and
efficiency of inventory and monitoring programs throughout the Forest Service. Establish
methods to promote awareness across all resource programs of technologies suited for
use and adaptation.
Who:
When:
ENG, FHP, IMI, R&D, EMC
FY2000 – FY 2003
13
Status:
Inventory and monitoring technology improvements are being developed
at the Remote Sensing Applications Service Center, San Dimas Technology
Development Center, regional FIA programs, and other locations.
14
Appendix A
Example of protocol summary based on information for Northern and Intermountain Regions status and
relationship of inventory activities in Regions 1 and 4. 1/
Unit
Scale
Biophysical
Character
Existing
Vegetation
Nation
Section
FIA/FHM
Section,
Subsection
FIA/FHM
State
Ecoregion,
Basin
Ecoregion,
Basin,
Subbasin
State
Section,
Subsection
FIA/FHM
Forest
(Plan)
Subbasin,
Watersheds
Subsection,
Landtype
Association
(LTA)
FIA
Stand Exam
Ecodata
District
(Project)
Subwatershed
s
Landtype
Stand exams
Ecodata;
Noxious Weed
inventories;
TES Plant
inventories
Region
Terrestrial
Ecological
Units
Individual
Species
Monitoring
Protocols for
individual
indicators,
species,
condition
classes, or
survey subjects
Protocols for
Individual
Habitat Models
Individual
species Habitat
indices
Aquatic
Ecologic
al Units
Human
Dimensions
Protocols for
individual
indicators
Protocols
for
delineating
HUCs;
valley
bottom
segments
R1/R4 Fish
and Fish
Habitat;
Stream
Reach and
Hydrologic
Inventory
Protocols
Protocols for
characterizing
Social &
Economic;
Recreation;
Grazing/
Timber
suitability;
Mineral
potential;
Heritage;
Special Uses;
Recreation;
Timber;
Roads, trails,
and facilities
FIA: Forest Inventory & Analysis; completed region-wide 1999.
LTA: Landtype Association Mapping and Attributes. Region 1 lands are mapped (100% complete)
R1/R4: Fish and Fish Habitat Standard Inventory Procedures Handbook INT-GTR-346
HUCs: 4th, 5th, and 6th Hydrologic Units are delineated in accordance with USGS standards for Idaho, Montana.
1/ Additional detail of listing of protocols could be provided and linked as needed.
15
Appendix B
Summary of scheduling and rough sequence of actions proposed. Most complex actions will be
undertaken by working groups chartered by the Inventory and Monitoring Issue Team. These
working groups will develop detailed project plans and adjust this preliminary timeline as
detailed steps and interdependencies are more carefully analyzed than has been done in this
action plan.
IMIT
lead
Task.
Action
Develop Purpose and
Objectives Statement
Doug
Powell
7.C
Identify Region, Station, Area
Program Leaders
Steve
Solem
1.B
Develop Bus. Requirements
Analysis Process 1/
Ron
Brohman
Catalog Existing IM Protocols
Conduct
Business Requirements
Analysis
Ron
Brohman
1.C
Ongoing
Completed
Ongoing
Started
3.C
Define Collaboration Goals and
Objectives
Review Partner IM Mgmt &
Accountability Systems
Establish IM Budget Advisory Steve
Group
Solem
Completed
Wanda
Hodge –
vacant
Identify & Resolve Information RIG
Policy & Technology Barriers position Ongoing
6.G
Evaluate assistance available
to Regions
3.A
6.A
7.B
Solem
for WO
For WO,
completed
Jiim
Keys
for RO
and
others
7.A
4.A
6.B
FY 2001
2nd Half
Action
1.A
8.A
FY 2001
1st Half
Define Organizational Roles
Formulate & Manage
Communications Strategy
Conduct Activity and Program
Reviews
Kerry
McMenus Ongoing
Steve
Solem
For RO
and others
Ongoing
through
Regional
I&M
strategic
planning
Ongoing
Assistance Assistance
trips to R5, trip to R1
16
FY 2002
1st Half
FY 2002
2nd Half
R6
2.D
Review Partner IM Mgmt &
Accountability Systems
Establish Standards for Data
and Maps
6.C
Establish Technical Approval
Process
6.A
3.B
8.C
Establish and Manage I&M
Agreements
8. D
Test and Adopt IM Protocols
Technology Development and
Transfer
6.D
Refine Performance Measures
& IM Links
6.E
6.F
2.A
2.B
2.C
2.E
4.C
Streamline Reporting &
Requirements
Review and Update FS
Directives
Prepare IM Systems Approach
Paper (GTR)
Define and Adopt Classification
Schemes
Brohman
for Maps Ongoing
Steve
Solem
for
national
agreeme FIA
nts
Completed
Keys as
coordinat TEUI, AEUI, Soci/econ
or
analyses ongoing
Ullrich
Ongoing
Solem
Keys
Ongoing
Hoekstra 1st draft
completed
Ron
Brohman Ongoing
Evaluate I&M Programs
Compare Data To Standards &
Classifications
Prepare IM Technical Papers
5.B
Data Exchange Pilot
Testing/Strategy
Establish & Maintain Data
Exchange and Information
Delivery System
4.B
Develop I&M Training Program
5.A
completed
Ray
Czaplew
ski
RIG
staff?
Hodge
vacant
position
Keys and Ongoing through
Brohman Business analysis
8.B
Identify I&M Protocol Gaps and
Priorities
3.D
Establish Stewardship
Agreements
and protocol
development
17
1/
Business Requirements Analysis: Business requirements analysis is an industry standard process that
has evolved from information systems analysis techniques. Information analysis techniques previously
used in the information technology industry have had a heavy emphasis of examining the data needed and
used by an organization. Consequently, many past efforts centered on information systems tend to
produce comprehensive data models, but do not adequately portray information about what people do and
how they operate. The business requirements analysis methods proposed will describe:
1. What is done (or needs to be done)?,
2. Who does it (and who is involved)?,
3. Which data/information is needed to do the job?,
4. Where is the work conducted?,
5. When is the work done (sequencing and actual time/dates)?, and
6. How are things done?
By examining “What, Who, Where, When, Which (data), and How” research and experiences in industry
has shown that the organization can better define their strategy, manage operations, engineer processes
and policies that support the strategic mission of the organization. Examining what people do, why they
do what they do, and how they use data and information to achieve their objectives provides robust
information needed to find economies and efficiencies that can be gained from changing/re-engineering
processes, not just automating potentially ineffective activities or storing data accumulated through those
activities.
Thus business requirements analysis can enable the agency to improve inventory and monitoring
programs by providing information needed to change what is done and how its done. In terms or recent
popular management jargon the process proposed is a marriage between the “re-engineering” of our
inventory and monitoring programs and the rigor of industry standard “requirements analysis” methods
for systematically describing and evaluating the goals, objectives, and operations of our inventory and
monitoring programs.
18